DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment submitted on 04/26/2024 has been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 04/26/2024
Claims 1–14 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 04/26/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025, and 04/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11 and 13, the phrase "a second time closest the first time" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how close the time is. Is it a second a minute. Examiner is interpreting closest as the time being after the first time.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 11 and 13, the phrase "a third time before/after the second time" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the third time is before or after the second time. A third time implies being after a second time. Examiner is interpreting the third time is after the second time.
Regarding claim(s) 8, 12 and 14, the phrase " generating a learning image by changing a positional relation between the attention area set in the extracted image and an attention part of the sample person to be noted” renders the claim indefinite because it is also unclear how the positional relation is being changing. Is the attention area being changed by moving the attention are or the attention part. For the purposes of examination the Examiner is interpreting the change as changing the attention area in the extracted image either by shifting, moving or rescaling.
Regarding claim(s) 2–7, the claims are rejected as they inherit the same deficiencies and depend on the rejected claim 1 under 112(b).
Regarding claim(s) 9–10, the claims are rejected as they inherit the same deficiencies and depend on the rejected claim 8 under 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) and embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
“[a] transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Petrus A.C.M. Nuijten; Fed Cir, 2006-1371, 9/20/2007).
Specifically, Applicant’s specification describes at paragraph ¶ [0095] of the specification recites: “For example, the arithmetic apparatus 41 may read a computer program stored by a computer-readable and non- transitory recording medium, by using a not-illustrated recording medium reading apparatus” describes and as a result is drawn to a recording medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Thus, the claims are not eligible subject matter. It is recommended to amend and narrow the claims to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claims.
Claim(s) 1–3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 13 recite(s) an apparatus, a method, a CRM respectively. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1, 11 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1, 11 and 13 are directed to an apparatus, a method, a CRM respectively.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1, 11 and 13 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1: the limitations recite:
An authentication apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (generic computer components); and
at least one processor (generic computer components) configured to execute the instructions to:
authenticate a target person, by using a person image generated by a visible camera imaging the target person at a first time (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
Regarding independent claim(s) 11: the limitations recite:
An authentication method comprising:
authenticate a target person, by using a person image generated by a visible camera imaging the target person at a first time (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
Regarding independent claim(s) 13: the limitations recite:
A recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an authentication method is recorded (generic computer components), the authentication method including:
authenticate a target person, by using a person image generated by a visible camera imaging the target person at a first time (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind); and
determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally observe an image to see if the a face matches in the image and observe a thermal image to tell if something is alive by looking at the hot region compared to the other regions. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a generic computer component(s), for example, processor, memory does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 11 and 13 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 11 and 13 discloses an generic computer components, for example, memory, a processor and a computer-readable storage medium which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1, 11 and 13 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Thus, since independent claims 1, 11 and 13 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that independent claims 1, 11 and 13 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2–3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s) are a mental processes including (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind).
Regarding claim 4–7: the additional limitations do integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process.
Regarding claim 8–10, 12 and 14: the additional limitations do integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20190114495 A1, hereafter, "Chang") in view of Yong (CN 109377628, hereafter, "Yong").
Regarding claim 1, Chang teaches an authentication apparatus (See Chang, [Abstract], A live facial recognition method and system includes capturing a visual image and obtaining temperature information) comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (See Chang, ¶ [0019], a memory unit 14); and
at least one processor (See Chang, ¶ [0019], Specifically, the processor 11 (e.g., a digital image processor) may include circuitry such as an integrated circuit) configured to execute the instructions to:
authenticate a target person, by using a person image generated by a visible camera imaging the target person at a first time (See Chang, ¶ [0027], In step 33, the facial feature values of the person under recognition are compared with a facial feature database (database for short). If a difference between the facial feature values of the person under recognition and corresponding facial feature values of the database is not less than a predetermined threshold value (step 34), indicating that they have substantially different facial features (i.e., a facial feature error is outside an acceptable range), the facial recognition fails (step 36). Note: Examiner is interpreting the comparing of facial features as authentication); and
[determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person].
However, Chang fail(s) to teach determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person.
Yong, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person (See Yong, ¶ [0058], The infrared image processing module 113 is used to compare the first infrared thermal image and the second infrared thermal image, and obtain the liveness detection result based on the comparison result).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s reference to determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a plurality of thermal images generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person at a second time closest the first time, and a third time before/after the second time, of a plurality of times when the thermal camera images the target person based on the method of Yong’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to simplify and quickly process the authentication (See Yong, ¶ [0004–0007]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Yong with Chang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 11, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Furthermore, Chang teaches An authentication method comprising (See Chang, [Abstract], A live facial recognition method and system includes capturing a visual image and obtaining temperature information)).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to the claim 13, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference. Furthermore, Chang teaches a recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an authentication method is recorded, the authentication method including (See Chang, ¶ [0019], a memory unit 14 and a storage device 15. Specifically, the processor 11 (e.g., a digital image processor) may include circuitry such as an integrated circuit).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20190114495 A1, hereafter, "Chang") in view of Yong (CN 109377628, hereafter, "Yong") further in view of Chen et al. (US 11,328,152 B2, hereafter, "Chen").
Regarding claim 2, Chang in view of Yong teaches The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor (See Chang, ¶ [0019], Specifically, the processor 11 (e.g., a digital image processor) may include circuitry such as an integrated circuit) is configured to execute the instructions to identify an attention area (See Chang, ¶ [0033], In step 355, a feature area (that includes at least one sub-area) is selected in the visual image, and a corresponding feature area is then obtained in the temperature image) to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body (See Chang, ¶ [0033], Subsequently, in step 356, it compares temperature of the feature area of the temperature image with temperature of at least one neighboring sub-area. ¶ [0034], Finally, in step 357, if comparing result (of step 356) conforms to predetermined (or normal) facial temperature distribution, the live facial recognition criterion is asserted or conformed), [in at least one of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, adjusts a position of the attention area in the at least one thermal image on the basis of the at least one thermal image], and determines whether or not the target person is a living body on the basis of a temperature distribution in the attention area whose position is adjusted (See Chang, ¶ [0033], Subsequently, in step 356, it compares temperature of the feature area of the temperature image with temperature of at least one neighboring sub-area. ¶ [0034], Finally, in step 357, if comparing result (of step 356) conforms to predetermined (or normal) facial temperature distribution, the live facial recognition criterion is asserted or conformed) .
However, Chang and Yong fail(s) to teach in at least one of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, adjusts a position of the attention area in the at least one thermal image on the basis of the at least one thermal image.
Chen, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: in at least one of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image (See Chen, [Col. 4, ln. 20-22], The thermal sensor 11 and the image sensor 12 are arranged to simultaneously or alternatively acquire images without particular limitations), adjusts a position of the attention area in the at least one thermal image on the basis of the at least one thermal image (See Chen, [Col. 6, ln. 20-26], In this case, the memory 14 previously stores a space conversion algorithm or matrix transformation algorithm between the thermal image Ih and the image frame Im. In this way, after confirming the processed region WOI in the thermal image Ih, the processor 13 confirms a corresponding processed region WOI in the image frame Im according to the stored algorithm).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s reference in at least one of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, adjusts a position of the attention area in the at least one thermal image on the basis of the at least one thermal image based on the method of Chen’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide more accurate recognition and automate the process to reduce human intervention (See Chen, [Col. 1, ln. 15–32 and Col. 2, ln. 37–42]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Chen with Chang and Yong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20190114495 A1, hereafter, "Chang") in view of Yong (CN 109377628, hereafter, "Yong") further in view of Seo et al. (See NPL attached, “Face Liveness Detection Using Thermal Face-CNN with External Knowledge”, hereafter, “Seo”).
Regarding claim 3, Chang in view of Yong teaches the authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor (See Chang, ¶ [0019], Specifically, the processor 11 (e.g., a digital image processor) may include circuitry such as an integrated circuit) is configured to execute the instructions to identify an attention area (See Chang, ¶ [0033], In step 355, a feature area (that includes at least one sub-area) is selected in the visual image, and a corresponding feature area is then obtained in the temperature image) to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body (See Chang, ¶ [0033], Subsequently, in step 356, it compares temperature of the feature area of the temperature image with temperature of at least one neighboring sub-area. ¶ [0034], Finally, in step 357, if comparing result (of step 356) conforms to predetermined (or normal) facial temperature distribution, the live facial recognition criterion is asserted or conformed), [in each of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, selects at least one thermal image in which an attention part of the target person to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body] (See Chang, ¶ [0033], Subsequently, in step 356, it compares temperature of the feature area of the temperature image with temperature of at least one neighboring sub-area. ¶ [0034], Finally, in step 357, if comparing result (of step 356) conforms to predetermined (or normal) facial temperature distribution, the live facial recognition criterion is asserted or conformed), is included in the attention area, [from among the plurality of thermal images] on the basis of the plurality of thermal images, and determines whether or not the target person is a living body on the basis of the selected at least one thermal image (See Chang, ¶ [0033], Subsequently, in step 356, it compares temperature of the feature area of the temperature image with temperature of at least one neighboring sub-area. ¶ [0034], Finally, in step 357, if comparing result (of step 356) conforms to predetermined (or normal) facial temperature distribution, the live facial recognition criterion is asserted or conformed).
However, Chang and Yong fail(s) to teach in each of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, selects at least one thermal image in which an attention part of the target person to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body; from among the plurality of thermal images.
Chen, working in the same field of endeavor, teaches: in each of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, selects at least one thermal image in which an attention part of the target person to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body (See Seo, [Pg. 6, ln. 6–9], We collected one RGB image and one thermal image in each scene to find suitable data for face liveness detection. Since a thermal image is better than an RGB image at night, we took images in indoor residential environments with visible light for accurate performance comparison. There were no conditions for the distance of the object. The faces in the dataset were used with and without a variety of accessories, such as glasses. [Pg. 8, ln. 18–19], A total of 599 images in the RGB image dataset and thermal image dataset from image 1 to image 599 were used as training data, and the remaining 245 images were used for test data. Note: Examiner is interpreting the attention part as the face. The neural network trains using thermal image and so selects a thermal image when training);
from among the plurality of thermal images (See Seo, [Pg. 8, ln. 18–19], A total of 599 images in the RGB image dataset and thermal image dataset from image 1 to image 599 were used as training data, and the remaining 245 images were used for test data).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chang’s reference in each of the plurality of thermal images on the basis of the person image, selects at least one thermal image in which an attention part of the target person to be noted to determine whether or not the target person is a living body; from among the plurality of thermal images. based on the method of Seo’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately determine the liveliness (See Seo, [Table 4]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Seo with Chang and Yong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims are objected as being allowable if the claims overcome the outstanding 101 and 112(b) rejection: the present invention is directed to an Authentication Apparatus, Engine Generation Apparatus, Authentication method, Engine Generation method, and Recording Medium.
Claims 8–10, 12 and 14 are allowed. Claims 8, 12 and 14 are independent claims. Claims 9 and 10 depend on claim 8.
Claims 8, 12 and 14 are allowed because upon completing an updated prior art search and considering the combination of limitations as presented as a whole for the claim, the feature highlighted below are considered an improvement over the prior art and have not been found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by a combination of prior art.
Independent Claim(s) 8, 12 and 14 recites, inter alia the uniquely distinct features as shown in the excerpt below:
[8] “An engine generation apparatus that generates a decision engine for determining whether or not a target person is a living body by using a thermal image generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person, the engine generation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
extract at least one sample image as an extracted image from a learning data set including a plurality of sample images in which an attention area is set, the attention area indicating a body surface temperature distribution of a sample person, the attention area being to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body;
generate a learning image by changing a positional relation between the attention area set in the extracted image and an attention part of the sample person to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body, on the basis of an imaging environment in which the thermal camera images the target person; and
generate the decision engine by performing machine learning using the learning image.”, as recited by independent claim 8, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
[12] “An engine generation method that generates a decision engine for determining whether or not a target person is a living body by using a thermal image generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person, the engine generation method comprising:
extracting at least one sample image as an extracted image from a learning data set including a plurality of sample images in which an attention area is set, the attention area indicating a body surface temperature distribution of a sample person, the attention area being to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body;
generating a learning image by changing a positional relation between the attention area set in the extracted image and an attention part of the sample person to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body, on the basis of an imaging environment in which the thermal camera images the target person; and
generating the decision engine by performing machine learning using the learning image.”, as recited by independent claim 12, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
[14] “A recording medium on which recorded is a computer program that allows a computer to execute an engine generation method that generates a decision engine for determining whether or not a target person is a living body by using a thermal image generated by a thermal camera imaging the target person, the engine generation method including:
extracting at least one sample image as an extracted image from a learning data set including a plurality of sample images in which an attention area is set, the attention area indicating a body surface temperature distribution of a sample person, the attention area being to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body;
generating a learning image by changing a positional relation between the attention area set in the extracted image and an attention part of the sample person to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body, on the basis of an imaging environment in which the thermal camera images the target person; and
generating the decision engine by performing machine learning using the learning image”, as recited by independent claim 14, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim.
These features, considered in combination with the remainder of the claim’s limitations are not fairly disclosed, thought or suggested by the cited prior art. Specifically, the closest prior art (Previously cited), Chang et al. (US 20190114495 A1), Yong (CN 109377628), Chen et al. (US 11,328,152 B2), and Seo et al. (See NPL attached, “Face Liveness Detection Using Thermal Face-CNN with External Knowledge”), fails to either anticipate or render obvious the above underlined limitations. Accordingly, claim(s) 8, 12 and 14 are allowable over the prior art of record. It follows that claims 8–10 are then inherently allowable for depending on an allowable base claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim(s) 4–7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim(s) 4–7 contain subject matter that is not disclosed or made obvious in the cited art.
In regard to claim 4, when considering claim 4 as a whole, prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious, alone or in combination:
“The authentication apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not the target person is a living body, by using a decision engine capable of determining whether or not the target person is a living body from the plurality of thermal images, and
the decision engine is generated by a learning operation including: a first operation of extracting at least one sample image as an extracted image from a learning data set including a plurality of sample images in which an attention area is set, the attention area indicating a body surface temperature distribution of a sample person, the attention area being to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body; a second operation of generating a learning image by changing a positional relation between the attention area set in the extracted image and an attention part of the sample person to be noted to determine whether or not the sample person is a living body, on the basis of an imaging environment in which the visible camera and the thermal camera image the target person; and a third operation of performing machine learning using the learning image”.
In regard to claim 4, claim 5–7 depend on objected claim 4. Therefore, by virtue of their dependency, claim 5–7 is also indicated as objected subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa (US 20220351600 A1) teaches An information processing apparatus includes a control unit that performs a process of detecting, as sensing information, information that indicates an operation status of a device, and a process of judging, when the sensing information has been detected, by referring to a storage unit that stores therein response content associated with the sensing information, whether to notify a user of the operation status of the device.
Singh et al. (See NPL attached, “Computer Aided Face Liveness Detection with Facial Thermography”) teaches computer Aided Face Liveness Detection Algorithm with facial thermography has been proposed. The proposed algorithm performs expeditious and precise analysis of the temperature distribution of individual face characteristic areas. The experimental results show that the proposed algorithm significantly increases the security of face recognition system by detecting face liveness. The efficiency of the proposed method has been evaluated prosperously by considering facial thermograms of 100 subjects from In-House facial thermography dataset. Maximum reliability has been procured during face liveness detection with temperature sensation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION J SATCHER whose telephone number is (703)756-5849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm, Friday 5:30 am - 9:30 am PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DION J SATCHER/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights